Free HSC History Extension Flashcard Review

The past is everything that happened; history is the selective, evidence-based account of parts of it that someone constructs and communicates. History Extension studies that construction: who makes it, why, how and why it changes.

The study of how history has been written: the historians, methods, sources, contexts and debates behind interpretations of the past. It is the subject of both sections of the HSC History Extension exam.

Who are historians? What are the purposes of history? How has history been constructed, recorded and presented over time? Why have approaches to history changed over time?

Anyone who deliberately constructs and communicates an account of the past: ancient writers, chroniclers, court officials, academics, journalists, filmmakers, novelists, museum curators, oral knowledge-holders and digital creators. Their methods and authority differ and can be evaluated.

A historian trained in university methods of source criticism, citation and peer review. The model became dominant from the nineteenth century, following Ranke's seminar in Berlin; it is a benchmark of rigour, not the only definition of 'historian'.

A writer or producer outside the academy whose work reaches broad audiences, such as journalists, biographers and documentary makers. Their work can be rigorous or careless; judge it by its evidence, method and purpose, not by credentials alone.

The personal factors that shape an historian's work: biographical details, values and beliefs, philosophy of history, preferred approaches to constructing history, and bias.

The circumstances in which history is written: gender, class, ethnicity, time, place, social and economic structures, political constraints, official or unofficial status and academic background. Carr advised studying the historian before studying the history.

Perspective is the unavoidable standpoint from which every historian writes. Bias is a distortion that leads an historian to select or misuse evidence unfairly. Identify perspective; test for bias against the evidence.

An historian appointed or commissioned by a state or institution, such as Charles Bean for Australia's First World War history. Official status brings access to records and witnesses but can constrain purpose, tone and criticism.

A writer attached to a ruler or government whose work tends to serve the patron's reputation, such as Sima Qian at the Han court (who nonetheless judged emperors) or later insiders writing admiring accounts of leaders like JFK.

For most of recorded history, history was written mainly by elite men about public life. The growth of women's and gender history from the 1960s and 1970s brought new questions about family, work, sexuality and power and new uses of sources.

Historians' social and ethnic backgrounds influence whose experiences seem important. History from below and postcolonial history were driven partly by historians who questioned elite and imperial perspectives.

To record and commemorate; to explain causes; to teach moral or political lessons; to entertain; to build identity (national, religious, community); to legitimise power; to recover silenced voices; to pursue truth for its own sake.

History written to teach lessons or models of conduct, such as Livy's examples to imitate and avoid, or Plutarch's moral biographies.

History that aims to understand the past on its own terms rather than to serve present goals, as in Ranke's aim to show the past as it essentially was. Critics argue that full disinterest is impossible but remains a useful standard.

Writing history to reveal God's plan in human events, as in Augustine's City of God and Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

Using the past to create a sense of shared belonging, such as national histories in the nineteenth century or the Anzac legend in Australia. It can unify a community but also exclude groups and simplify the past.

Any application of the past to present purposes, such as commemoration, education, policy argument or identity. All history is used in some way; the question is whether the evidence is respected.

Distorting, fabricating or ignoring evidence to reach a predetermined conclusion, such as Holocaust denial or propaganda histories. It differs from reinterpretation, which revises conclusions in response to evidence and remains open to scrutiny.